knowledge of Turkish at this stage of his travels is unclear, he does frequently explain Turkish words and was sufficiently at home in the language to swear abuse in Turkish at thieves who were preparing to attack him. While in the first part of his journal Bars'kyj emerges as the pilgrim who stands outside the city gates, waiting for someone who understands Latin or a Slavonic language, in the second part he appears as the accomplished polyglot, scornful of those who know but a single language.
Although poverty continued to stalk Bars'kyj, the second part of his journal is far less preoccupied with begging for alms as the sole means of financial support. Increasingly patriarchs, archbishops and abbots received him with honour, as a distinguished visitor rather than as a mendicant pilgrim. Greek monks and clerics more readily accepted him as belonging to their number and there were fewer instances of him being rejected as the suspect outsider. The pace of travel also slowed down somewhat, with Bars'kyj prepared to spend months in a particular town or weeks at a sacred site instead of a few rushed days or a couple of hours, as was previously the case.
More significantly, the second part of Bars'kyj's journal displayed fundamental changes in form and format. Most notable is his use of pen and ink line drawings to illustrate his observations: a practice which he started shortly after his arrival in Jerusalem on 30 September 1726. Frequently there is a close correlation between the drawings and the text, with Bars'kyj on occasion stating that a particular icon appeared the way in which he had shown it in the illustration, or that the structure of Joseph's Well or a topographical description could be more clearly understood by consulting the accompanying drawings, which were both detailed and carefully labelled.9 At this stage of the journal, drawings play the role of explanatory footnotes or decorative vignettes. Bars'kyj was a naive but authentic recorder of what he saw. He was probably aware of the schematic formulae of architectural drawings found in Greek travel books of the time, but he appears to have adapted their conventions to the monuments before him rather than copying existing illustrations. What his drawings lack in the professionalism of their execution they gain in their precision of observation. His drawings have none of the baroque trappings and allegorical personifications that are such a common feature in the eighteenth century of western European travel books.
9 In Bars'kyj's text the many references that allude to his drawings include those concerning the miraculous icon at the Kykkos monastery on Cyprus, Joseph's Well and the overall appearance of Nazareth. See Bars'kyjMs., fols. i8or, I90r, 237r.
The form of descriptions also starts to change gradually, as Bars'kyj moves away from his previously adopted form of listing general impressions interspersed with descriptions of towns and holy sites, to a much more analytical approach. The change is not purely one of the amount of detail included, or of the length of the entry. While exceptionally long and detailed descriptions of the monasteries ofNea Moni on Chios, St Sabas, outside Jerusalem, and St Catherine on Mount Sinai do appear in this section, there is a gradual change in Bars'kyj's method of presentation of his material. In the earlier part he listed conflicting pieces of evidence with contradictions not explained but treated as part of the greater wisdom of the Lord. In the second part a more rationalist approach is evident, even if scriptural authority remains of paramount significance. Since the Gospels mention that the Holy Family fled to Egypt, Bars'kyj had no difficulty in accepting a small dwelling in Cairo as being the house in which they stayed, when it was identified as such by the local Christian community10 However, when a contradiction arose, like two houses purporting to be the very house in which the Archangel Gabriel approached the Virgin Mary to deliver the Lord's message, then Bars'kyj adopted an analytical approach. The first candidate for this site was the shrine in Loreto, which Bars'kyj accepted as genuine when he visited it in 1724 and related the miracle of how the angels had transported the house there from Palestine.11 He encountered the second candidate five years later in Nazareth itself. What is interesting is not so much that he declared the house in Loreto to be a fake, but the reasons he gave for his conclusion. While not doubting the ability of angels to carry houses, if they so desired, he found it impossible to accept that a whole house could disappear from Nazareth without the local inhabitants noticing it and without the event being recorded in local oral tradition. For Bars'kyj, the most important piece of evidence for discounting the Loreto building's identification as the authentic dwelling was, as he notes, 'that the house in Loreto is assembled out of red bricks, fired in ovens, but in Nazareth there have never been houses made out of bricks, nor are there now, but they are all made out of natural white stone cut out of the surrounding hills and in no way can bricks be found there, neither new nor ancient ones'.12 Bars'kyj's boldness in rejecting an accepted tradition can be explained in part by the fact that here he was confronted by two contradictory traditions, one advanced by the Catholic Church and the other by the Orthodox Church, and in this instance the truth clearly lay on
Was this article helpful?